Slashdot Mirror


How An Andromeda Strain Might be Strained

An anonymous reader writes "For the world-record holder as the longest surviving bacteria in space [6 years, Bacillus subtillis], it turns out that among the multitude of dangers [cold, vacuum, UV, lack of nutrients, etc.] the greatest stress of all is intense ultraviolet radiation. In the next two years, new space station experiments are slated to test the panspermia hypothesis--also popularized in Robert Zubrin's "Entering Space", but dating back at least 150 years in the scientific literature. Recent balloon experiments, have rekindled alot of the controversy, but NASA Ames scientist, Rocco Mancinelli, concludes: "In my opinion, for a spore, it's quite likely.""

55 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this a surprise? by slycer9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's been a long standing standard that one of the most effective antibacterial/antiviral measures one can take today is UV irradiation, it's one of the few things most movies even get correct. Hell, even most of the studies done about UV irradiation on humans in space is inconclusive. Or has all the hype in the past (Anti-Anthrax measures in post offices) been just optimistic public placating?

    --
    Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
    1. Re:Why is this a surprise? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You just need to make sure you've killed EVERYTHING. Otherwise, if given enough time, the bacteria may develop a resistance through evolution. Apparently there was bacteria on the Mir space station that had evolved (due to the pressures of the environment, etc.) to the point where it could eat through titanium. Of course, this caused all sorts of damage to space station components. The ISS may breed similar kinds of life. Recent measurements have shown that ISS occupants receive the same level of radiation in a day as a human on earth receives in a whole year.

    2. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An interesting (and slightly worrisome) aspect of this is that most radiation, including UV, is known to greatly increase the number and degree of mutations over time.

      Not only does it select for a trait (UV immunity), it causes lots of mutations. Sort of a synergistic Darwinism. Combined with other techniques - What a great way to create nifty new bacteria. Neat, and of course a bit scary.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    3. Re:Why is this a surprise? by Cujo · · Score: 3, Informative

      OTOH, I have a hard time believing that an organism that optimized its genome for surviving direct exposure to UV radiation would be much good at surviving in our bodies. I don't even know that there is a path through gene space to get there. Only speculation, of course - IANAMB ( I am not a microbiologist).

      It seems an easier strategy would be to hide. You wouldn't need to be very far down inside a meteorite or chunk of space debris to escape UV.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    4. Re:Why is this a surprise? by seschmi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, UV radiation isn't an effective antibacterial measure at all. Unfortunately, UV radiation can easily be shielded - if the germs are hidden behind a barrier (ice, stone) which is thick enough to shield the radiation, they won't care. That's why UV is seldom used for desinfection - if you have germs inside a tool (e.g. an endoscope) or in larger clumps, desinfection will fail. Much better is radioactivity (gamma rays) or gases that are able to permeate plastics (e.g. ethylene oxide).

    5. Re:Why is this a surprise? by PD · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is just SO wrong in so many ways.

      1) There are some things that a bacteria will never be resistant to. Physical attacks against their cell wall, for example.

      2) The bacteria on Mir was not a bacteria. It was a fungus.

      3) The fungus did not evolve. It was a common earth strain.

      4) The fungus did not eat anything. It secreted a corrosive substance.

      5) The fungus did not eat throught titanium. Mir was aluminum.

      6) During periods of high solar activity, astronauts on the space station might get 30 millirems of radiation in a single day. On the other hand, on the surface we pick up 350 millirems from background, and another 150 or so from cosmic radiation in a year. So, ISS occupants do NOT receive the same amount in a day as they would get on the surface in a year.

    6. Re:Why is this a surprise? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 2
      I was citing from memory, so I'm sure the details got messed up somehow.
      5) The fungus did not eat throught titanium. Mir was aluminum.
      Yes, I know that Mir was aluminium. I think they ran tests on the bacteria and found that it could corrode (not eat) titanium.
      6) During periods of high solar activity, astronauts on the space station might get 30 millirems of radiation in a single day. On the other hand, on the surface we pick up 350 millirems from background, and another 150 or so from cosmic radiation in a year. So, ISS occupants do NOT receive the same amount in a day as they would get on the surface in a year.
      What's this, then? To quote: "Data collected by NASA and a Russian-Austrian collaboration show that astronauts on the ISS are subjected to about 1 millisievert of radiation per day, about the same as someone would get from natural sources on Earth in a whole year."
    7. Re:Why is this a surprise? by PD · · Score: 2

      Point #5, OK, I'll give it to you.

      Point #6 - I do not consider New Scientist to be authoritative on anything. Once upon a time, I wrote a letter to New Scientist. They fucked it up. You can read all about it here.

      So if New Scientist said it, they're wrong. Utterly wrong. To do a little bit of analysis, a millisievert is 100 millirems. That value of 1 millisievert a day is the same as 100 millirems a day. So in one year, according to the new scientist article, we get 36,500 millirems of radiation at the Earth's surface. When you dig a little bit, you realize that it's probably 100 times too large to be possible. New Scientist is obviously wrong. I bet their lousy illiterate editors changed the text to make it more poetic or some crap like that. They sure don't care for accuracy in reporting.

      This page (too lazy to make a link) http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyP ages/R/Radiation.html describes the dosages in millirems for several things. Among them:

      Normal background, Boston MA: 102 millirems/year
      X-ray technician: 320 millirems/year
      additional dose from living close to three mile island: 8 millirems/year
      Dosage from past nuclear tests: 0.06 millirems/year
      Dosage from Fiestaware pottery: 200 - 300 millirems per HOUR

      If you have some of that old pottery, get rid of it. It's orange, made with a uranium pigment. It's pretty dangerous stuff. The newer stuff isn't radioactive. If you're in doubt, have it checked with a geiger counter.

    8. Re:Why is this a surprise? by 3waygeek · · Score: 2

      Dosage from Fiestaware pottery: 200 - 300 millirems per HOUR

      If you have some of that old pottery, get rid of it. It's orange, made with a uranium pigment. It's pretty dangerous stuff.


      Or you can keep using it and become a superhero.

  2. Origin of life? by sifi · · Score: 4, Funny

    So we could have all originated from something blown out of an Alien's nose - that sure explains a lot.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  3. Lunar Colonists Were Returned To Earth... by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Another prime example of bacterial space survival was found by Apollo 12 when it brought back parts of the unmanned Surveyor 3. Conrad's quote here has been censored, incidentally; his original quote was a little pithier...

    1. Re:Lunar Colonists Were Returned To Earth... by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole goddamn Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said shit about it."-- Pete Conrad

    2. Re:Lunar Colonists Were Returned To Earth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A lot of good information on that quote can be found on this site.

  4. life finds a way by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 2

    Maybe such experiments can show how life may 'evolve' to adapt to the extremes of planets/moons in space.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
    1. Re:life finds a way by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The interesting side effect of this could be the ability to terraform worlds using re-engineered bacteria. Get those suckers breathing in toxic fumes, breathing out the building blocks for human life, and infect millions of worlds.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  5. Bacteria on the moon by jeff_bond · · Score: 5, Interesting
    An interesting link about bacteria that was unintentionally left on the moon, and was later brought back to earth alive.

    Jeff

    --
    stty erase ^H
  6. Earths bold new defense... by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, an invading alien race has left us for health reasons. Apparently we are the descendants of their common cold.

  7. yummm by greechneb · · Score: 3, Funny

    "In the first, she made a sort of layer cake, alternating layers of spores with layers of soil or clay, etc."

    That just ruined my appetite for the day. Anybody want the rest of this layer cake that I'm not gonna eat?

  8. seeds are amazing by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sheltering a strain of politically persecuted plant seeds in my fridg - keep 'em cool, dry and dark. Some have been in there over 10 years and will sprout in a week of warm, damp and dark.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  9. Hostile space environment by panurge · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ever since thiobacter concretivorans was discovered chewing its way through concrete in nuclear reactors, we've known that life is not necessarily restricted to a temperature range of around 0-40C. (That's 32-104F for people who hate the French.) What with the stuff that grows in hot springs at 95C (work out yourselves), and the stuff that lives at the bottom of oceans, we shouldn't really be surprised if microorganisms can survive in space - after all, comets have plenty of ice and dirt, just like the Earth. And no matter how bad the UV, there is going to be somewhere on a comet or small asteroid that is shaded from direct solar radiation. Maybe I'm just being stupid, but to me the argument goes something like (and I may be repeating myself, if so sorry)

    50% of the planets we've actually checked out are inhabited.

    The other 50% have been visited by human beings who have left artefacts behind

    So why do we expect the rest of the universe, including the non-large rocky bits,to be life-free?

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Hostile space environment by Hammer · · Score: 2, Informative

      0-40C. (That's 32-104F for people who hate the French
      Actually that would be Swedes, since the inventor of the International Standard for temperature was a Swedish scientist named Anders Celsius.

    2. Re:Hostile space environment by CommieLib · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've heard this argument quite a bit over the years and while it certainly is true that life can survive in extremely hostile conditions, it does not necessarily stand to reason that life could develop equally well in such conditions.

      Colder conditions are necessarily going to have fewer of the chemical reactions that lead to the bottom of the chain that is life. Hotter conditions are likely to have so much entropy that life either never develops initially or is wiped out over and over again.

      The whole question, however, may be moot. As Zubrin points out in Entering Space, Earth-originating bacteria has possibly already reached other star systems. So as the unmitigated greatness of Red Dwarf posits, it's possible that life evolves nowhere else in the universe than Earth and things are still pretty interesting.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    3. Re:Hostile space environment by Soulslayer · · Score: 2

      If the episode of Connections 3 I just watched tonight is to be believed Fahrenheit developed his scale using a number of weird semi-arbitrary refrences that he actually stole from a lesser known scientist whose notes had burned up (allowing for Fahrenheit to steal the glory, such as it was).

      The scale originally started with the freezing temperature of water beign 0 F and the top of scale being the temperature of a man's healthy armpit (no joke) or approximately 90 F. But there was a need to be cleanly divisible by 8 or some such other nonsense and he started fudgeing the scale with 32 F becoming freezing and 100 F being the healthy armpit. Of course his reading of 100 F was off and human body temp would later be established as 98.6 F.

      http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/2001/ 02 /05.html

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
  10. I'd like to know... by GeckoFood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is how said information would be useful to us, since we already know what stresses bacteria. I mean, are we looking for an advancement in medicine or something, that will, say, extend the shelf life of certain helpful cultures or anything like that? Or is this just for the pure science of it and the satisfation of having knowledge?

    I don't care either way. It's interesting to follow stuff like this, but it makes it a lot more interesting for the spectator when one knows what the goal is...

    --
    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
    1. Re:I'd like to know... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right now, the goal is just to know. That's it.

      Eventually ... who the hell knows? We may learn something that will have direct medical applications. Or we just have more data to file away in the ever-increasing store of human knowledge, and a century or three from now someone will come along and say, "Hey, I can use this."

      I'm all for applied scientific research (I ought to be, considering I work in biotech.) I'm also all for pure scientific research, since, a) more knowledge is never a bad thing -- yes, I will happily defend that statement against the "things man was not meant to know" crowd -- and b) most of the useful technology we have today was based on what was, at one time, pure science without any obvious application.

      Benjamin Franklin watched the Montgolfier brothers' first balloon go up. When someone else asked him of what use he thought such a thing might be, he replied, "Of what possible use, sir, is a new-born babe?" Exactly.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  11. However... by Skevin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The scary thing about the Andromeda Strain was that it wasn't a bacteria. It wasn't even a virus. It wasn't even organic, moreso a complex molecule that happened to reproduce using heat.

    In other words, some journalist is looking at how long life forms we know and love(?) can survive the harsh conditions of outer space and finding an opportunity to use the term "Andromeda Strain"?

    Solomon

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    1. Re:However... by digitalhermit · · Score: 2

      Interesting...
      A few people have proposed that all life on Earth is really just a vehicle for a complex molecule (DNA) to reproduce itself. At some point, whether it's at the virus level or at a molecular level, things somehow become living. I'm not sure what the criteria for life is since it seems to vary between different groups of scientists, but it is interesting in that "got nothing better to do on a Monday morning but post on Slashdot" sort of way.

    2. Re:However... by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

      Humans are just a vehicle for the improved survival of cows. Cows have succeeded in training us to protect and care for them. Their numbers have increased into huge herds on every part of the globe. They are now competing with penguins to get us to take over Antarctica.

    3. Re:However... by digitalhermit · · Score: 2

      This is a very interesting theory. Laurie Winn Carlson once wrote about the symbiotic relationship that humans and cattle have shared over the history of mankind. Cattle have also been useful in the prevention of smallpox (remember cowpox anyone?). Little wonder that cataclysmic events in recent history began almost exactly after the rash outbreaks of mad cow disease in Europe.

    4. Re:However... by debrain · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like a prion, popularly believed to be the cause of mad cow disease et al. Prions are believed to be proteins that self-replicate using host DNA. They gestate over 20 or so years or so.

  12. UV Radiation by Waab · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that there are micro-(or even macro-)organisms drifting through space feeding on UV radiation.

    After all, we thought a lack of light would doom the sea floors to lifeless oblivion only to learn that life had adapted to feed on the what was available. Why should we assume that bacteria drifting through the void of space haven't evolved in a similar fashion?

    1. Re:UV Radiation by CowbertPrime · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most space 'surviving' organisms do just that. They 'survive'. They lie dormant and shield their DNA using spores or some other sort of mechanism. In any event, they don't have high metabolic rates (that would induce the creation of more oxidants and radicals) and don't divide, as DNA polymerase is very picky about structural morphology and damage such as mismatches or crosslinking will cause polymerase to stall, fall off, or skip the section - it is these times where reproduction of bad DNA becomes fatal. Lysogenic phages also react to UV damaged DNA and excise themselves, enter the lytic cycle and further contributes to cell death.

      However, low dose UV mutagenesis is used quite often, because interesting things happen when bacteria are exposed to UV. Bacteria do have sets of genes that repair UV damaged DNA, in addition to the so-called SOS response. Most UV damage occurs is not directly detrimental - just the formation of pyrimadine dimers which kinks the DNA and either prevents transcription or replication. The uvr (UV Repair) genes along with umu (UV Immutable) genes can do nifty things like replace the beta subunits in polymerase to accomodate structural defects, meanwhile. Prokaryotes even have phr (Photo Repair) systems to fix this stuff using longer wavelength light. Where large sections of DNA are skipped during replication, recombination can be used as a repair mechanism. At least these can keep the cell alive, but incur lots of mutations, which is useful when you are not sure what kind of mutation you are looking for and you don't know the locus so that chemical mutagens are ruled out in addition to site-directed mutagenesis.

    2. Re:UV Radiation by tftp · · Score: 3, Funny
      Without the liquid water there is no "life" in space

      We, beings of Jupiter, do not agree. Liquid water that you are talking about is nothing but insanely hot and barely maintainable substance. Only in our high energy labs such material can briefly exist, and obviously no life can thrive in it either.

      Besides, everyone knows that liquid, pleasantly warm (+20K) methane is most optimal for life. Water that you speak about is just a heresy.

      Signed,
      88736662-99923662 Jr.

  13. Simple answer by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    SPF 5006

    With aloe vera, of course.

  14. In the voice of Homer by burgburgburg · · Score: 2
    Mmmmmm, spores.

  15. Guess they haven't tested this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Deinococcus radiodurans is the most radiation-resistant organism known. Deinococcus radiodurans were discovered in 1956 by Arthur W. Anderson at Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station in Corvallis. Among the many characteristics of Deinococcus radiodurans, a few of the most noteworthy include an extreme resistance to genotoxic chemicals, oxidative damage, high levels of ionizing and ultraviolet radiation, and dehydration. "
    - http://deinococcus.allbio.org/

  16. Re:Question... by Andrewkov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems unlikely to me. Virus and bacteria evolved over millions of years to be compatible with animals and people on our planet. I don't think we'd make good hosts for a parasite that had evolved on another planet. At least I hope not!! ;-)

  17. I Wish! by deathcloset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what are the chances of a planet like earth with a star like the earths with the chemical makeup of earth getting hit with a comet/big-ass-thing (probably the most likely part of the equation), which is not so terribly big as to wrend the planet into star-orbiting dust, and not too small as to allow the pieces to coalesce back into a nice spheroid, but just big enough to launch a healthy piece (meaning lively) through space to rendevous with a planet like earth with a star.......you get the picture.
    I want just as badly as any other sci-fi buff to make it with a hot alien babe. But let's face it. 2 meter tall, bipeadal, sexy aliens are pretty unlikely...Even more unlikely than life as we know it or most of us getting laid tommorow.
    "We have calculated (in the Mileikowsky paper in Icarus (2000) that in order to protect spores for 1 million years against cosmic radiation, a 1-meter-thick layer of the meteorite is necessary." ...how thick must it be for entry through an atmosphere?

  18. About Mars and dark sands by Ektanoor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well this is not exactly about panspermias but it may be an interesting note about the possibility of life in outter Space.

    I would risk to say that we may already have some evidence (not proof!) that something alive may thrive in Mars surface. Nearly two years ago I got hand in a frame where one could see both light and dark dunes among a rugged Mars landscape. It was interesting to note that dark dunes formed mostly opposite to the general pattern of winblow that could be inferred from light dunes and the erosive processes in mounds and cliffs. Besides, on several places, under certain mounds, one could see how "dark sands" covered one side in a weird manner. They would concentrate over the base of the mound's side and swiftly dissipate the farer they would be from the mound.

    MSS scientist claimed that these pattern was the result of light dunes being "pertified" and that dark dunes being "active". However, in several places, one could be pretty sure that the light mounds were still very active, was they "cut" a dark dune with their edges. Moreover, in one section of this regon, dark dunes would always "hide" behind the bigger and larger light dunes.

    In the whole, it seemed that dark dunes ran away from light and wind, what was quite weird. As the region presented lots of data on how wind acted, the pattern was clear and perfect.

    On other section of Mars I saw an even more weird picture. There, dunes would have clear and well visible "bridges" between themselves - patches that united dunes well far away from each other. In one place, such "bridge" was rising over a mound, going down through a small cliff and uniting two dark dunes quite far apart from each other (maybe more than a few hundreds of meters).

    These strange and weird dark dunes are a mistery in Mars, many of them are clear and pure dunes, only its dark pattern gets quite weird as they don't have a clear origin. However some places show dunes that are only slightly similar to natural dunes. They are more compact, smaller than light dunes, Besides they present a "water drop" pattern rather than presenting the usual crescent shape of most dunes.

    This is not the only weird thing in Mars about "dark lands" There are many more. However this is the most widespread weird feature in the planet. One can see this from pole to pole. However they are not in every place. They are quite localized in certain regions, while others lack them completely.

    1. Re:About Mars and dark sands by Ektanoor · · Score: 2

      Nope, they were not shadows. While shadows messed in some places, along with dark dunes, it was easy and clear where and how to track their effects on ground. Frankly I made a small mistake on my post. Dark dunes didn't hide completely and totally from light. They hided from the most intensive light. They were located in places were daylight would be less intensive during the course of the day.

  19. Oh! That reminds me! by jabber01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    As I kid, I'd read a story, by Stanislaus Lem IIRC, in which the Earth seeks admission to a Galactic Congress of sorts. After reviewing Earth's pedigree, we are denied memberships on the grounds that the primordial ooze from which we're descended was actually the result of illegal dumping by some aliens. The specifics of the story escape me, but I recall that after purging their septic system on the young and lifeless Earth, the aliens responsible added insult to injury and stirred the pool of waste with a stick, in a clockwise direction, which imparted onto our DNA a right-handed chirality, which is apparently considered mongrel by everyone else in the galaxy.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

  20. inside rock by peter303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    A few centimeters of rock will sheild against most anything. Microbes have been found as deep as anyone has drilled in the earth- 8 miles, so there are probably lots of microes inside rocks.

  21. Don't forget abiogenesis by job0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The hypotheses competing with panspermia is abiogenesis. Abiogeneis theorises that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. I tend to favour abiogeneis slightly over panspermia simply because we know
    that there is life on Earth, but we don't know if there is any elsewhere in the Universe.

    The four steps to necessary for Abiogenesis are:

    Inorganic Molecules to Organic Monomers

    Organic Monomers to Organic Polymers

    Formation of membranes from the polymers

    Acquisition of a means of reproduction

    Maybe the asteroids instead of seeding the earth provided the energy required for the first step.

    1. Re:Don't forget abiogenesis by CowbertPrime · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, astronomers have shown that dust particles near UV radiation (e.g. near a star) can form organic monomers from diatomic molecules, such as raw carbon, H2, and O2, because intense UV forms radicals that quickly react with the native species to form such compounds as glycine and acetate.

      Furthermore, the Urey-Miller experiments have been recently underplayed because it has been determined that the early Earth atmosphere did not contain high concentrations of methane and some other compounds that Urey-Miller used as the assumptions for that experiment.

      Abiogenesis seems to be more logically sound than panspermia because as you say, we have no proof of life elsewhere in the universe, so panspermia ultimately still begs the question of 'who was first'. However, abiogenesis has its own issues with inflation (saying that impossible odds can be overcome by postulating an undefined but presumably infinitely large population - if the chance for a reaction involving 2 species is 1E-24, then we postulate that there were more than 2E24 particles in the same volume and that the 2 particular species were close enough to react. It is not merely the inflation of numbers, but inflation of the probability that the two particles are in the same vicinity).

  22. So Sir Fred Hoyle was right! by CresentCityRon · · Score: 2

    I had read several of his books in the 80s and my friends thought he must have gone bonkers after being a great astronomer.

    Too bad he passed on before he could be shown to be correct... if this virus from space stuff is proven correct.

    -Ron

  23. Simpler Things Harder to Kill by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Simpler things are sometimes harder to kill. The Andromeda Strain was hard to kill because it was a simple thing which had adapted to an extremely harsh environment.

    Similarly, prions -- the deformed proteins associated with Mad Cow and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies -- survive autoclaving. Bacteria break down in an autoclave, but not prions, which are much simpler things. Very worrisome, because autoclaving is the standard procedure for sterilizing surgical instruments.

    Contrast this with complex things -- e.g. human beings -- which can be killed in a thousand simple ways.

    More complex, more vulnerable.

    I'm reminded of the "trans-warp drive" from one of the Star Trek movies, I forget which: Scotty shuts down the drive by heisting a few chips, and says with a smile: "The more they tinker with the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the works."

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Simpler Things Harder to Kill by CowbertPrime · · Score: 2

      That seems interesting. Because prions are just protein, they ought to denature in an autoclave, just like you would boil a bit of meat.

      And that quote was from ST:III: The Search For Spock where the new Excelsior was sent to stop Kirk after he stole the Enterprise to return to the Genesis planet in order to rescue Spock.

  24. spelling by upstateguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The correct spelling is 'subtilis' A non-pathogenic (except for a few odd-ball cases) gram-positive, sporulating prokaryote. So it acts as a model system for all sorts of nasties including anthrax.

    The B. subtilis spores are *extremely* hardy and were very close (genetically) to the bugs that the one group claimed to have extracted from amber.

    And the japanese eat a fermented soy product made by this guy (natto).

    I worked on that damn bug for my PhD so it's a love/hate relationship. :-)

    1. Re:spelling by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Funny

      I rather like the use of 'You gram-positive, sporulating prokaryote!" as an epithet. It has much more class than "Yer mother uses Windows!"

  25. 6 years? Big deal.... by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 3, Informative

    What about the bacteria found frozen in the polar
    ice caps that "revived" when thawed?
    It was hundreds of thousands (millions?) of years
    old, and still viable!
    I don't remember the specifics... just turn on
    Discovery, TLC, or The Science Channel once in a
    while, you'll stumble over it.

    The popular beliefs of the limits of life are being
    challenged all the time. Just look at the life
    in/near the thermal vents in the deap ocean for
    a comparison in the opposite direction.

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  26. put it in a petrolium base, please. by twitter · · Score: 2, Redundant

    If bacteria can survive for millions of years in petrolium under ground, I'm sure they can survive for equal time scales in blobs of tar in space. Does this mean that Earth was colinized by life from somewhere else? No, after all that life had to come from someplace and that place might just have been Earth itslelf. It could however, make it possible for Earth to have been colinized and it does make it possible for Earth to continue to receive new life forms.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  27. seems dubious by g4dget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The second evidence was from growths observed from using potato dextrose agar as medium and the microorganism could be identified as staphylococcus pasteuri. Rod-like bacillus and fungus (engyodontium albus de Hoog) were also found.

    I have no problem with the idea that microorganisms can travel through space, if we find evidence for it.

    However, these claims strike me as dubious: these are organisms adapted to earth environments. Staphylococcus pasteuri is grown at body temperature and isolated from human vomit, and Engyodontium album is a eucaryote. Neither of them seems like a good candidate for a space bug, and both of them seem like somthing you would easily get if someone doesn't handle sterile samples carefully. You'd also expect big differences in sequence data.

    If space is full of spores for organisms highly adapted to earth environments, that's a much, much stronger claim than merely claiming that space is full of spores. If they are extraterrestrial, where are these supposed to be coming from?

    The most plausible explanation for these particular results is terrestrial contamination. If they want to prove anything more, the experiment really needs to be repeated many times and under different conditions. And they really should find some differences in the DNA sequences.

    1. Re:seems dubious by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2

      My thoughts exactly, but you beat me to it. I don't think we need boggle at the idea of terrestrial bacteria in the upper atmosphere. Once they get there by any means (volcano, airplane, an extraordinarily high-powered sneeze) they might remain aloft for years.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
  28. Re:Question... by CowbertPrime · · Score: 2

    What are you saying? Andromeda Strain was turned into a bad B movie! :)

  29. Hmm... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2

    You know, while I've always respected Benjamin Franklin, I think that a hot air balloon is a little big to play 'catch' with.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.